a) Explain the moral issues surrounding euthanasia.
Euthanasia is a painless, peaceful and lucid death who some agree to be moral while others consider the complex issues surrounding the procedure. These issues include religious perspectives such as the sanctity of life argument and concern for quality of life, autonomy and personhood.
The sanctity of life proposal stands strong for those who adopt Judaeo-Christian values because they believe that God is the only one who can take or give life because he has created all humans imago dei (Genesis 1:27). It builds on this idea that life is sacred and holy and that “everything that happens in this world happens at the times God chooses” (Ecclesiastes 3:1-2). Of course, the ultimate Christian belief is found in the Decalogue, Exodus 20:13 “Thou shall not kill”, an objective and uncompromising law. Therefore, if a doctor were to conduct voluntary euthanasia he would be destroying Gods creation and taking a holy life of which he has no right to take irrespective of whether that person has asked to die. Natural law accepts this stance of euthanasia because it also adopts a very Catholic position and would reject euthanasia because it violates the primary precepts (don’t die and worship God). These are absolutes that should not be broken and consequently cannot take into account certain circumstances such as those in terminally ill health. Cases such as Dianne Pretty would be denied her autonomy and right to make her own decision despite her wanting “a quick death” and would be forced to continue living with her motor neurone disease. Its argued that Dianne should be in full control of her own life and have the opportunity to decide whether she wants to live or die however if we legalised euthanasia through this proposition then it leaves behind those who are unable to make those decisions due to mental illness.
Another issue to be considered is someone’s quality of life and whether that person is perfectly happy outside his or her illness. Whether someone’s life is fulfilling is dependant on how they feel themselves and the likes of Stephen Hawking prove you can still lead a fulfilled life, even with a serious illness. So this begs the question whether someone who requires euthanasia must also have poor quality of life and be unable to engage in “higher order pleasures”.
The concept of personhood has caused controversy amongst those for and against because it considers whether one person in a handicapped state is of less importance and therefore eligible for euthanasia. Peter Singer regarded those in a PVS are unable to make rational decisions and are of less importance than a rat because they cannot engage in pleasurable activities. Singer also valued preference over human life an can argue that if one lacks personhood they can be euthanised. This is in contrast to other utilitarian’s such as John Stuart Mill who believes in human autonomy and ones right to make their own decisions. In his book On Liberty he encourages people to depict their own destiny.

b) To what extent is the quality of life the least important factor when considering euthanasia?
When examining the euthanasia argument its evident that this issue of quality of life is a dominant factor when depicting whether euthanizing someone is moral. The quality of life ideology examines whether someone is independent, able to make rational decisions and can engage in pleasurable activates such as reading, painting or playing music. Should euthanasia be irrespective of whether someone’s life is fulfilled?
In scientific terms, quality of life is medically immeasurable and only concerns the emotive aspect of pre-determined death. In a doctors opinion, whether that person is able to engage in the above my not be as necessary to consider. There are cases such as Stephen hawking who suffers with a motor neurone disease yet this does not affect him mentally and he is able to obtain a fulfilling life, which is great for him. Whereas there is other motor neurone patients who believe they suffer with a poor quality of life and would happily go through with euthanasia. Therefore the quality of life seems to be relative to the individual and should not be a universalised principle to base the decision for euthanasia. Kant would argue that everyone has the right to be autonomous and not conducting euthanasia because that’s what society/God wants is not autonomous.
However quality of life remains an important factor for those of religious belief because it was God who granted humans the quality of life and goes along the idea hat we are Gods temple and that is not to be oppressed.
Overall, it seems the most important factor when considering euthanasia is that one persons wishes and whether they are in PVS r not they should be able to prematurely terminate their own life and die in dignity.